EDITORIAL: Guns and "rational risk assessment"

Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 07:51 PM.

Rational risk assessment is measuring the ACTUAL not the PERCEIVED risk of some event happening.

A good example is terrorism. Shortly after 9-11, a study was conducted showing the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. The study found: “Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer or severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”

Yet, look at the amount of money we spent on Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act and other alleged “safety” programs — was it worth it? Was it the best use of our money?

In 2011, 8,533 were murdered with a handgun or other gun.

Now, guess how many people were killed in automobile accidents? Almost four times that number — 32,000.

Here is another statistic: in 2008 (most recent numbers for this survey by the U.S. Justice Department), 66 percent of the murders committed in the U.S. were by guns. What was the percentage in 1975? It was 65 percent. And there were actually more gun murders in 1975, 1980 and 1985 than in 2008.

Now, when it comes to guns, there is an entire enterprise devoted to making either side of the gun debate look superior. Our point is not “pro-” or “anti-gun.” Our point is policy decisions should be made rationally.

Here is the only question that really matters on gun control: What changes could be made in our nation’s gun laws that would do more good than harm?

Seem simple?

It’s not.

Measuring what benefit and cost look like when it comes to issues that involve commodities, moral issues and the nation’s founding principles is exceedingly difficult.

Doing so with heaping cupfuls of high-charged emotion dumped into the mix makes it next to impossible.

This is why we wrote yesterday and urged a detached view of these issues. Maybe some people make better decisions when they are filled with sorrow or pain or rage. But our experience is otherwise.

So, rather than taking a “do something” approach to gun laws, why not take the approach of “rational risk assessment.”

Rational risk assessment is measuring the ACTUAL not the PERCEIVED risk of some event happening.

A good example is terrorism. Shortly after 9-11, a study was conducted showing the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. The study found: “Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer or severe allergic reactions to peanuts.”

Yet, look at the amount of money we spent on Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act and other alleged “safety” programs — was it worth it? Was it the best use of our money?

In 2011, 8,533 were murdered with a handgun or other gun.

Now, guess how many people were killed in automobile accidents? Almost four times that number — 32,000.

Here is another statistic: in 2008 (most recent numbers for this survey by the U.S. Justice Department), 66 percent of the murders committed in the U.S. were by guns. What was the percentage in 1975? It was 65 percent. And there were actually more gun murders in 1975, 1980 and 1985 than in 2008.

Now, when it comes to guns, there is an entire enterprise devoted to making either side of the gun debate look superior. Our point is not “pro-” or “anti-gun.” Our point is policy decisions should be made rationally.

So, let’s get back to our first sentence: What changes would do more good than harm?

Let’s ask it another way — what law would have needed to have been in place to assure that this tragedy would not have happened. We would submit the answer is: there is no law.

There might have been laws that would have made weapons used by the perpetrator illegal. But making something illegal and stopping it are two different things.

We know this from the totality of American and world history. Banning a commodity has never and will never work. Prohibition, the ill-fated “War on Drugs,” the resale of sports tickets — you name it, the black market will always fill the void.

Now, is it possible that there are non-commoditized segments of the gun trade that could be controlled?

Perhaps. And if so, it is worth investigating those areas.

But Prohibition failed, not just because it was wrong to deny citizens access to a product they desired, but because it INCREASED CRIME! And it increased crime because, where there is demand, a black market will always form.

Let’s put it this way: If you were absolutely certain that more crime would occur if certain types of guns were banned, would you support that ban? We would submit that the premise of that question is absolutely sound.

Now, we know there are strict constitutionalists who argue gun rights from a 2nd Amendment standpoint. Our view is that it takes a particularly warped reading of that amendment to conclude it should allow people to own and carry military grade weapons with large magazines and armor-piercing bullets.

And again, if those types of items are in such short supply that the supply can be squashed, we would support that view.

But, as a practical matter, when it comes to handguns and other common guns, so long as there is a demand for those weapons, and given the incredible supply that already exists in this country, the only thing controlling that supply will do will be to create more crime and violence.

What changes could be made to our nation’s gun laws that would do more good than harm?